KJV Only...which one!

[Naomanos]

We have God’s Word today that we can hold in our hands and say it is the Word of God.

Yes, we do, it's every version including the KJV.

 

[JesusFan1]

Not necessarily. What do you think happened in Jeremiah 36:28-32? When the original was destroyed… a copy was made by Jeremiah AND… something amazing happened. New words were added to the copy. It did not remain exactly like the original. So the idea of originals only is just a sham. God can edit His Words as He sees fit so as to preserve His Words for us today in the English. Granted, I am not saying God is making radical changes or anything, but God is making the necessary changes in the English to reflect what was said in the originals. For not all languages translate word for word. God knows this. So God is capable of adding words to a copy. He did it before, and He can do it again as a part of the preservation of His own words. But what is interesting is that these added words… are there but they are not there. So no actual words have truly been added in one sense. But in another way they are there for us to understand. The Bible speaks about how there are words that are there and yet not there. But this is above your pay grade that you would only scoff at and not appreciate.

So yoyu are denying that the Holy Spirit inspired the hebrew, Aramiac, and Greek texts then in the originals>

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I don't think I am being confusing. I disagree with your premise that differences between the KJV and the Modern versions are "CHANGES". You are wrong about that. Your arguments ASSUME that the KJV is perfect. Then, when differences are found between the KJV and other translations, you count these as "Changes".

Everyone agrees that translations are different. And I told you why they are different. The Textus Receptus was both incomplete and inaccurate, which is why Erasmus corrected it. The TR is still incomplete and inaccurate. I doubt you want Christians to read a Bible that is inaccurate. Right? Modern translations aren't changing anything. They are CORRECTING errors. Do you think it is wrong to correct errors?

And you assume the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible is not the Bible and you favor the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts, and you favor Westcott, Hort, Nestle, Aland, and the Vatican’s involvement.

 

[farouk]

the idea of originals only is just a sham. God can edit His Words as He sees fit so as to preserve His Words for us today in the English. ... God is making the necessary changes in the English to reflect what was said in the originals.

You mean, the English in the KJV supposedly "corrects" the originals?

 

[JesusFan1]

I don't think I am being confusing. I disagree with your premise that differences between the KJV and the Modern versions are "CHANGES". You are wrong about that. Your arguments ASSUME that the KJV is perfect. Then, when differences are found between the KJV and other translations, you count these as "Changes".

Everyone agrees that translations are different. And I told you why they are different. The Textus Receptus was both incomplete and inaccurate, which is why Erasmus corrected it. The TR is still incomplete and inaccurate. I doubt you want Christians to read a Bible that is inaccurate. Right? Modern translations aren't changing anything. They are CORRECTING errors. Do you think it is wrong to correct errors?

Kjvo does not see ANY errors nor mistakes in the Kjv, so they assume any and all such are corruptions of the true bible!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes, we do, it's every version including the KJV.

But that’s illogical because many verses contradict each other and do not all say the same thing. Such a view would simply be a pick and choose your own adventure Bible.

 

[Naomanos]

But that’s illogical because many verses contradict each other and do not all say the same thing. Such a view would simply be a pick and choose your own adventure Bible.

Which is your opinion that it is illogical. It also isn't anywhere near a pick your adventure Bible.

 

[JesusFan1]

It would seem so.

Supreme irony is that the "patron saint" to Kjvo was Dean Burgeon, and while he pro Kjv himself, also did see the need to update and correct the Kjv and the TR in hundreds of places!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You mean, the English in the KJV supposedly "corrects" the originals?

No. More like clarifies what the originals say with italicized words so that there is no confusion. The italicized words in the KJB are sort of like words in brackets like in the AMP translation. The words in brackets are not really a part of the original text. It’s the same with the italicized words in the KJB. The words in italics are added to enhance meaning and understanding. Why? Because God is not the author of confusion.

 

[JesusFan1]

But that’s illogical because many verses contradict each other and do not all say the same thing. Such a view would simply be a pick and choose your own adventure Bible.

Again, the differences many times are as simple of saying Lord jesus, jesus is Lord, the Lord Jesus, jesus Christ, Christ Jesus etc!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Which is your opinion that it is illogical. It also isn't anywhere near a pick your adventure Bible.

Yes it is. If a person wants to reject the Trinity, they will favor a Modern Bible that does not have 1 John 5:7, and the word Godhead (Trinity) that appears three times and changes that word to divinity. If a person only owned a Modern Bible and not a KJB, then they will not know about how fasting is included in prayer to cast out persistent demons. The list goes on and non. So no. Not all bibles say the same thing. It’s silly to suggest otherwise.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Again, the differences many times are as simple of saying Lord jesus, jesus is Lord, the Lord Jesus, jesus Christ, Christ Jesus etc!

I have already shown the changed doctrine in this thread several times. So no. You are just espousing something that is patiently false, my friend.

 

[JesusFan1]

No. More like clarifies what the originals say with italicized words so that there is no confusion. The italicized words in the KJB are sort of like words in brackets like in the AMP translation. The words in brackets are not really a part of the original text. It’s the same with the italicized words in the KJB. The words in italics are added to enhance meaning and understanding. Why? Because God is not the author of confusion.

So when the Nas does the very same thing as the Kjv did, its also a good thing then?

 

[JesusFan1]

Yes it is. If a person wants to reject the Trinity, they will favor a Modern Bible that does not have 1 John 5:7, and the word Godhead (Trinity) that appears three times and changes that word to divinity. If a person only owned a Modern Bible and not a KJB, then they will not know about how fasting is included in prayer to cast out persistent demons. The list goes on and non. So no. Not all bibles say the same thing. It’s silly to suggest otherwise.

the Nas esv and Nkjv ALL gives to us the exact dame doctrines and theology as the kjv did, and in some ways even stronger fashion!

 

[Naomanos]

If a person wants to reject the Trinity, they will favor a Modern Bible that does not have 1 John 5:7, and the word Godhead (Trinity) that appears three times and changes that word to divinity.

Wrong. I can still see the Trinity in a modern version.

It’s silly to suggest otherwise.

I happen to think your position is silly. You say that God preserves His word in the language of today, well, I don't speak 1600s British English. I speak 2022 American English. There is a difference between the two. So, your argument falls apart there. It also falls apart when you make the false equivalency of the KJV against modern versions. You cannot compare the two because the KJV is not the source material, itself being a translation.

Also, God lead me to the NKJV. So, His leading far outweighs your opinion.

 

[JesusFan1]

You mean, the English in the KJV supposedly "corrects" the originals?

Yes, extremes Kjvo has asserted that is the truth!

 

[JesusFan1]

Wrong. I can still see the Trinity in a modern version.



I happen to think your position is silly. You say that God preserves His word in the language of today, well, I don't speak 1600s British English. I speak 2022 American English. There is a difference between the two. So, your argument falls apart there. It also falls apart when you make the false equivalency of the KJV against modern versions. You cannot compare the two because the KJV is not the source material, itself being a translation.

Also, God lead me to the NKJV. So, His leading far outweighs your opinion.

When Kjvo refuses to accept that the hebrew and greek texts trump the Kjv, its shows that it is a sham and bogus!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Supreme irony is that the "patron saint" to Kjvo was Dean Burgeon, and while he pro Kjv himself, also did see the need to update and correct the Kjv and the TR in hundreds of places!

I am not an expert in the life of Dean Burgeon to make that kind of judgment. But he is not a patron saint to me. I simply believe the King James Bible is the Word of God for many reasons. I have come up with 101 reasons actually.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes, extremes Kjvo has asserted that is the truth!

I see it more like a preservation of what God said in the originals and so words were added (in italics) in our language to convey the same meaning. Like in all translations…. Some words need to be added for clarity of meaning.

 

[JesusFan1]

I am not an expert in the life of Dean Burgeon to make that kind of judgment. But he is not a patron saint to me. I simply believe the King James Bible is the Word of God for many reasons. I have come up with 101 reasons actually.

None of them were valid!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

When Kjvo refuses to accept that the hebrew and greek texts trump the Kjv, its shows that it is a sham and bogus!

We refuse to accept the Hebrew and Greek if it conflicts with the English because they are supposed to say the same thing because it was translated from those languages into English. People today are simply wanting to correct the Word of God and trying to hide behind the original languages card excuse. They can teach false doctrine and nobody would be the wiser because nobody really knows these dead languages today. All meaning of these original languages stems from recent Biblical Hebrew/Greek to English dictionaries. There is also no apostle Paul or Moses around to correct a person on these languages, either. I say this because you cannot go up to Chinese people and correct one of their great literary works by simply reading a Chinese to English dictionary. There are things that you are not going to get from studying a book but you need to know that language in speaking, and writing it by first hand experience with a culture that is alive. That’s what’s dumb about Modern Textual Criticism.